T
H
E
SPECIALEDGE
S p r i n g
IMPROVING
2 0 0 1
■
V o l u m e
OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES THROUGH
SPECIAL EDUCATION/
GENERAL EDUCATION
1 4 ,
INSIDE THIS I SSUE
Inclusive Efforts That Work
3
When to Pull Out
9
A Parent’s Experiences
13
Special Insert: LRE White Paper
3
Using LRE Supports and Services
T
C OLLABORATION
N u m b e r
For Improved Results for Students with Disabilities
By Judy Schrag, ED.D.
he term least restrictive
environment (LRE) has undergone a
continued evolution in meaning and
practice over the past 30 years. In
1975, LRE was included within Public
Law 94-142 to require that students
with and without disabilities be
educated together to the greatest extent
possible. During this period, many
students with disabilities were being
excluded from school; the LRE concept
was intended to provide physical
access. The federal regulations defined
LRE as a placement within a
continuum of options, or places to
send students, to receive special
education and related services.
Various early writers depicted LRE
options as a cascade of placements
Collaboration: Five Core Messages
Developed by Colleen Shea Stump, PH.D., San Francisco State University
and the California Department of Education, Special Education Division
ranging from most restrictive (e.g.,
special schools, out-of-district
placements, and home-hospital placements) to least restrictive (general
education, resource rooms, and parttime special education placements).
The emphasis on physical access
shifted in the 1980s, when LRE was
thought of in terms of integration and
mainstreaming. This focus changed
understandings from the guarantee of
physical access to the schools to that of
program access. The concept of LRE
further evolved during the latter 1980s
and 1990s, with an emphasis on
expanded access for students with
disabilities to general education
classrooms and neighborhood schools
through inclusion. During the middle
to latter 1990s, access to the general
curriculum crystallized as a priority.
This evolution of LRE corresponded
with the education reform priorities for
higher expectations, state and district
LRE continued, page 8
• All individuals bring expertise and talents to collaborative efforts: professional competence, cultural competence, communication
skills, and conflict resolution skills.
• Sustainable collaborative efforts involve stakeholders who share a commitment to common goals and who work cooperatively as equal
partners, clearly articulating the goals of their effort and making a commitment to following through with assigned responsibilities.
• Administrative support, time to collaborate, and ongoing professional development opportunities are integral components of
successful collaborative efforts.
• Early intervention, data-informed decision-making, intensive academic intervention, and the use of the general education curriculum
as the basis for making curricular and instructional decisions are central to effective collaborative efforts.
• Teaming among general education, special education, and service providers; communication; on-going dialogue among stakeholders;
and the shared belief that all stakeholders are accountable for all learners are necessary for collaborative efforts to be sustainable.
• Collaborative efforts are developmental in nature and move through stages: (a) sharing information about the needs of students
identified as having disabilities and found eligible for special education; (b) discussing adaptations and modifications; (c) providing
supports in the classroom; (d) sharing instruction in the classroom; and (e) jointly providing instruction in the classroom.
For the complete text of the goals, go to the following website:
http://www.calstat.org/transitionmessages.html
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
SPRING 2001
■
1
T
H
E
SPECIALEDGE
Director, Special
Education Division
California Department
of Education
Contract Monitor
and Project Liaison
Editor
Editorial Assistant
Project Managers
Mary C. Grady
Joyce Rau
Linda Blong
Anne Davin
Geri West
Guest Editors
Linda Landry
Contributors
Ann Carr
Alychia Chu
Mary Falvey
Kevin Feldman
Ann Halvorsen
Pam Hunt
Judy Schrag
Colleen Shea Stump
The information in this issue is in the public
domain unless otherwise indicated. Readers
are encouraged to copy and share but to credit
CalSTAT. This issue is available electronically,
on audiotape, in large type upon request, and
at the Special Education Division’s website:
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/
spec_edge/specnws.htm>.
Contact The Special EDge at 707/206-0533,
ext. 103; mail to Sonoma State University,
CalSTAT/CIHS, 1801 East Cotati
Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928;
or e-mail <[email protected]>. You can
download pdf versions of this and previous
newsletters by going to <http://
www.calstat.org> and following the links to
publications.
Informing and supporting parents, educators, and
other service providers on special education topics, with
a focus on research-based practices, legislation,
technical support, and current resources
SPRING 2001
L
Janet Canning
Circulation: 40,000
■
FROM THE
Alice Parker
The Special EDge is published quarterly by
Sonoma State University’s Project CalSTAT
(California Services for Technical Assistance
and Training). Funding is provided by the
California Department of Education, Special
Education Division, through contract Number
0127 with Sonoma State University’s
California Institute on Human Services
(CIHS). Contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of
Sonoma State University or the California
Department of Education, nor does mention
of trade names, commercial products, or
organizations imply endorsement.
2
L
ETTER
Dr. Alice Parker, Director of the
Special Education Division of the
California Department of Education
s
s
s
s
s
STATE DIR EC TO R
east Restrictive Environment (LRE)
holds out a clear vision for children
with disabilities and their families. We
all must understand and advocate for
this vision becoming one and the same
for every child:
Living independently
Enjoying self determination
Making choices
Pursuing meaningful careers
Fully participating in the economic,
political, social, cultural, and educational
fabric of American society
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) tells us that each
public agency shall ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled. In
addition, it ensures that children with disabilities are only placed in special
education classes or special schools, or anywhere else that is separate from
the general education environment, if the nature or severity of the disability
is such that it is impossible for that child to experience success in the general
education classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services.
We must be sure that educational decisions for students with disabilities
are based on assessments of their individual needs; that these assessments
then help determine appropriate services and sets of services; and that there
is accountability for these services within the educational system.
The special education system must be held to high standards of
accountability. Only in this way can we improve results for students with
disabilities. To support this effort, we must provide school personnel and
families with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively assist students
with disabilities in their efforts to attain their own high standards.
Since 1974, a focus on developing quality programs has resulted in just
that—programs for every category of disability we can name. With the
reauthorization of IDEA, renewed focus is squarely where it started and—I
add my belief—where it always should have been: on improving educational
outcomes for children with disabilities.
This is why, whenever we come together on behalf of a child with
disabilities, we need to carry a picture of that child and his needs and her
wishes and a clear vision of how they can be fulfilled and realized.
Finally, we must tell our children with disabilities the stories, today and
every day, of our dreams and aspirations for them. We must let our
principals, teachers, superintendents, and legislators know where our
children are going and what star we want them to reach. Children with
disabilities can achieve high standards, and they can fully participate in
general education, if they are given specific and appropriate interventions.
This is the promise of LRE. This promise must and can be achieved.
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Inclusive Schools That Work
“Community” Is What I Think Everyone Is Talking About
I
ntegrating students with
significant disabilities into
general education is an effort
driven by a civil rights argument: students with disabilities have the right to access general
education contexts and curricula and to
be fully integrated with schoolmates in
those settings. In addition, numerous
studies document the benefits of inclusive
educational programs and practices for
students with and without disabilities
and their families. Finally, there is now
available an ever-growing body of
technology to support the administration, logistics, and curricular practices
needed to accomplish full inclusion for
students with severe disabilities.
Inclusive education is beginning to be
viewed as part of a broader agenda to
unify school resources and integrate
programs in ways that benefit all
students. While not yet common, it is
not unheard of for schools to create a
new model of service delivery that pools
resources from existing categorical
programs (e.g., special education,
bilingual education, compensatory
education, Title I, etc.) to provide services
that benefit students not identified as
eligible for those programs and to
improve services to students who are.
Some of the common principles of
reallocating resources include reducing
the specialized pull-out programs to
provide more individualized time for all
students in heterogeneous groups;
ensuring common planning time for
staff; and revising descriptions of staff
roles and work schedules to reflect
educational goals for all students.
Thousand Oaks School, an elementary
school in Berkeley, California, has made a
concerted effort toward inclusion and all
of the creative restructuring that it
represents. This school has a unique
history of collaboration, having started
with its bilingual and general education
programs. More recently, students with
disabilities have been fully integrated into
both bilingual and general education
classrooms. Principal Kevin Wooldridge
notes that “the mission for educational
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
staff at our school is to unify our resources
to promote the education and social
development of all of our students.” For
Thousand Oaks, this is no small task:
the population of the school is very
ethnically diverse, 50 percent of the
students qualify for free and reduced
lunches, and 34 percent demonstrate
limited English proficiency.
The teachers
Teachers are the driving force behind
the unification of the general, bilingual,
and special education programs. They
have molded and continue to maintain
the integrated education that supports
that teachers “make these things work . . .
actually making it appear not only to the
kids, but to the parents [as well], that it is
one program.”
The presence in the classrooms of the
inclusion teachers as teachers for all
students was a key element in the
unification of the special education and
bilingual or regular education programs.
As one teacher comments, “I think one
of the strengths [the inclusion support
teacher] brings to her position is not only
her willingness, but a natural approach to
looking at what works for . . . the class as
a whole . . . I think she sees her job as
“ The struggle
is . . .
to create
community”
students across the differences of culture,
language, and ability. One teacher noted
that “everybody in this has a pretty good
sense of the community in the school . . .
The struggle is against the sort of separating out of different groups of children,
and the pressure from all of us is to create
community rather than separating . . .”
The inclusion support teacher and the
classroom teachers share the responsibility
of educating all students in the classroom,
working together to develop needed
curricular adaptations and social supports,
and implementing a social curriculum
along with conflict-resolution procedures.
Teachers communicate with each other,
share ideas, and meld their expertise to
create a classroom community that offers
integrated activities, heterogeneous
groupings, and cross-cultural and mixed
language contexts for instruction. As one
teacher explained: “We brought our best
and shared it, and we packaged it and
[made] it work for our kids. . . . We take
the best of each other.” And a parent noted
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
helping to create success in the
classroom, and not for one student, but
for all students.”
The teachers find themselves
constantly asking how to organize
students in small groups while having the
full inclusion children be challenged
along with everyone else; and how to set
things up so that everyone still has a way
to help each other and work together.
Teachers are convinced that it is
responding to these very questions—the
fact that there is so much peer tutoring
and cooperative learning—that keeps the
kids together and gives them a positive
group identity, regardless of their abilities
or their first language.
Teachers also express their
commitment to the social aspects of the
school and classroom and to conflict
resolution. “It’s a huge part of what we
do,” one teacher noted. “It’s just the
reality of being teachers [now]: conflict
resolution and talking it out.”
Community, continued, page 4
SPRING 2001
■
3
Community continued from page 3
The role of principals
As principal, Kevin Wooldridge
supported, advocated for, and sought
out the resources necessary to create a
school community. He gave teachers
both the mandate and the freedom to
unify programs.
His associates see him as someone who
is grounded in day-to-day classroom
practice. One teacher described him as
knowing the “kids as individuals; so in
making decisions about the school, he
has firsthand knowledge of what he’s
making a decision about.”
Wooldridge is also viewed as a leader,
with justification. He actively supports
the unification of programs by ensuring
a continuing and open discussion of the
faculty’s vision for creating this
community. And he ensures that
changes are made by consensus, not fiat.
As one teacher commented, “I think it’s
been more than just leadership—it’s
really been [the principal] believing that
things can happen.” He provides a
forum for developing ideas and building
consensus. As one parent stated, the
principal created a “flexible, open,
comfortable environment for his
teachers.” This made possible the
positive relationships between him and
the teachers.
Support from parents
Parents were a powerful force behind
establishing inclusive education at
Thousand Oaks. They were partners
with teachers, with the principal, and
with other community members in
designing the programs. At various
school meetings and functions, as
classroom volunteers, and consistently at
home, they volunteered their positive
attitude toward the integration of
students across ability difference, culture,
and language. According to the
principal, “parents are the reason the
inclusion program started here.” In fact,
one teacher reports that the parents of
general education students were ready to
go to the district to protest the
suggestion that some boys with
disabilities would not be able to move on
to the middle school with their
classmates. These parents believed that
separating these boys from their
classmates was “ridiculous.”
4
■
SPRING 2001
The unified results
Mutual encouragement
The staff and parents at Thousand
Oaks wanted a united community, one
where students, teachers, principals,
family members, and staff all experience a
sense of belonging and a feeling of being
safe and of sharing responsibility for the
education of all students. It seems that’s
what they got. One teacher observed that
“people just embrace kids; there’s just a lot
of love and affection, and that is really a
huge key to the whole thing.” A parent
stated that “It’s like a family,” and another
noted that her son with disabilities “was
just part of it. He grew with them, and he
was always accepted.”
Teachers actively support each other, as
well as the students. They share the
responsibility for educating their diverse
classes by willingly teaming, collaborating,
trusting, and sharing with each other.
High expectations for the successful
academic and social participation of all
students are held not only by teachers, but
also by students for their classmates. One
teacher has “seen the incredible growth in
the full inclusion students—socially,
emotionally, and academically—from
what they were predicted to be able to do
to what they actually could do when they
were put in a situation where they had to
Collaboration at Whittier High School
By Mary Falvey
Ricardo is a sophomore at his local
high school and has qualified for
special education services for four of
the years he has spent in school in the
United States. He lives at home with
his older sister, mother, and stepfather.
The family moved to Southern
California from Mexico when Ricardo
was eight years old. He has Down
Syndrome and, by some people’s
standards, he has a severe disability.
Ricardo has good social skills and is
able to initiate positive interactions
with others using some verbal and
mostly nonverbal skills. He has some
skills in using and understanding both
English and Spanish. He has difficulty
learning when being lectured to. When
reading and writing are the only forms
of instruction, he also struggles to
participate. At this time Ricardo is fully
included at his neighborhood high
school. His family is determined that
he participate in school activities, both
academic and social, and be provided
with the supports he needs.
Ricardo is taking a math, science,
English, world history, physical
education, and study skills class. He
receives support in all his classes from a
support teacher (formerly known as a
special education teacher) or from a
paraprofessional from the special
education department who works
collaboratively with the classroom
teacher. Ricardo is given materials on
tape or video, highlighted materials
from his textbooks, and computerassisted instruction in order for him to
understand the major content. In
math, for example, he is provided with
a calculator, a laminated copy of the
formulas used, real life examples of
when and how to use the math skills,
hands-on manipulatives, and a
multiplication chart to assist his
meaningful participation.
Ricardo is an active member of all
of his classes, and he benefits from the
accommodations and adaptations
created collaboratively by his support
teachers, paraprofessionals, and
classroom teachers. He also benefits
from the use of differentiated
instructional procedures used by all
his classroom teachers who share the
disposition that all students can and
should be learning meaningful, ageappropriate core curriculum in ways
that make sense to them.
Ricardo attends Whittier High
School (WHS), a large school located
in east Los Angeles County. The school
is using the Coalition of Essential
Schools common principles in order to
create a collaborative spirit and
opportunity. The Coalition of Essential
Schools is founded on the principle
that the educational community must
develop personalized and meaningful
learning experiences so that all students
can succeed.
Eliminating the “special education
teacher” label was considered critical to
changing the perception that only
specialists can work with students with
disabilities. Thus, the high school
selected the term “support teacher” to
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
because the other kids just sort of
expected them to.”
Barriers
Limited financial resources are seen as
a major barrier to school reform efforts
to unify systems. The resources that are
critical to supporting staff development,
team planning meetings, and the
individualized supports and adaptations
so central to the success of inclusive
efforts are too often simply not available.
One of the inclusion teachers said, “I
always feel like I can’t give enough of
what I want to give, whether it’s time or
information or training.” Collaborative
planning, the backbone of unifying
identify staff who, in collaboration
with classroom teachers, supported
and coordinated services for students
eligible for special education. These
support teachers take on a variety of
collaborative roles with classroom
teachers: they co-teach or team teach
with content area teachers within
heterogeneous classrooms; and they
function as a support to all students,
not just those who qualify for special
education services.
The all-to-frequent method of
organizing students in secondary
programs, referred to as tracking, has
been intentionally decreased at this
high school. What was called the
“basic” track, the track identified for
the students who were the least
successful, has been eliminated
entirely. All students, including those
with disabilities, are now required to
enroll, participate, and learn in core
college preparatory courses throughout their high school years.
Support teachers quickly realized
that their old way of matching
students and special education
support was clearly categorical (e.g.,
students with learning disabilities were
assigned to teachers labeled Resource
Specialist teacher; students with more
significant disabilities were assigned to
Special Education Day Class teachers
and rooms). In schools where
inclusion is occurring, teachers might
have two or three special educators
interacting with them in their class to
support students with various labels.
This was an inefficient and confusing
use of the special educator’s time and
educational programs, is, as another
teacher stated, “pretty much done on
everyone’s own free time.” There are few
resources for regularly scheduled meetings to plan cooperative teaching or
collaborative small-group instruction, to
conduct joint assessments, to develop
academic adaptations, and to identify
positive behavioral support strategies for
students with challenging behaviors.
The consensus among the staff is that
students “need more support time. . .
more services; and at the same time, kids
who are technically general education
students have tremendous needs and
don’t get any level of support.”
expertise. As a result, WHS moved to a
non-categorical system of support for
students, in which each support
teacher is assigned to classroom
teachers and provides whatever support
the students need to be successful in
those core curriculum classes. Each
support teacher works with a
heterogeneous caseload of students
consisting of those who qualify for
Severely Handicapped (SH), Learning
Handicapped (LH), or Resource (RSP)
services.
Since all students are enrolled in core
curriculum classes, this is where
support is needed and provided. The
additional support benefits not only
those students identified as needing
specialized services, but many other
students as well who do not qualify for
specialized services, but who experience
their own unique challenges in
learning. The amount and type of
collaboration and in-class support
provided is determined by the IEP/ITP
(Individualized Education Program/
Individualized Transition Program)
team, which includes the student and
his/her family.
References
Falvey, M. (1995). Inclusive and
Heterogeneous Education: Assessment,
Curriculum, and Instruction.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s School:
Redesigning the American High School.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
To visit the website for the Coalition of
Essential Schools, go to
http://www.essentialschools.org/
Another significant challenge sited by a
staff member has to do with lack of
vision at their district level. Funding
sources don’t “quite know how [inclusive
education] looks. They don’t understand
all these experiences we’ve had; so . . .
they don’t have a full understanding or
vision of . . . inclusion.”
Benefits
To those parents and staff members
involved, the academic and social
benefits of unifying programs and
integrating students and staff members
are clear. Students learn to accept the
cultural, language, and ability differences
among their schoolmates; and they
develop positive, personal connections
that cut through those differences. As
one teacher commented, “Students
assume that their friends can be
everybody and anybody.” Teachers and
parents describe how students in
inclusive classrooms learn to work
together to plan and complete interactive
educational tasks, despite the fact that
members of the group present widely
varying levels of academic ability,
represent different cultures, or speak
different languages.
According to the staff, the academic
growth of the students with disabilities
“has been tremendous.” But there is also
discussion of the academic benefits for
other students when they have additional
special education staff in the classroom
who are providing small-group and
individualized instruction and assisting
in the development of academic
adaptations for all students who need
them. One parent commented that “a lot
of [general education] kids really
benefited from the smaller group or the
one-to-one interaction that they would
get working with the full inclusion child
and the aide.” Parents and teachers also
point out that the students who were
struggling academically appeared to
master educational content by teaching
other students during “buddy” activities
(i.e., assigning students as partners across
ability and age levels). In addition, being
a member of an inclusive classroom
promoted feelings of competency and
self-esteem for both the students with
and those without disabilities. One
unforeseen advantage, according to a
parent, is that “each person, regardless of
Community, continued page 14
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
SPRING 2001
■
5
The Connections Training Project
Promoting Developmentally Appropriate Inclusive Settings for Preschoolers
T
By Helen Walka, PH.D. California Institute on Human Services, Sonoma State University
he evidence is clear:
preschoolers with
disabilities benefit from
inclusion in programs for
typically developing children. Inclusion
leads to increased social competence,
higher level play behavior, and
improved engagement in learning.
Increased exposure to rich language
experiences during a critical period of
language and preliteracy development
constitutes a particular benefit.
But just being present in programs
for typically developing preschoolers is
not enough. The intent of IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act) is that children with
disabilities be placed in the least
restrictive environments so that they
can participate in the “core
curriculum,” that is, the goals and
activities for typically developing
children. This means not only that a
preschooler with disabilities should
attend a community preschool with
other children his or her age, but that
the child should also be an active
participant there. For example, the
school would design art activities so
that all children could access paints,
paper, and brushes in a variety of sizes,
allowing all children to hold them.
Facilitating active participation by
preschoolers with disabilities in learning environments across California is
the aim of the Connections Project:
Learning Communities for All
Children. This model of inservice
training and organizational development, funded by the California
Department of Education, Special
Education Division, promotes
developmentally appropriate inclusive
classroom practices and collaborative,
teaming strategies across teaching staff
for all children. The long-term goal of
this cross training is to foster the
availability of lasting opportunities for
high quality, early childhood services
for young children with disabilities in
the least restrictive environment.
Not all preschool educators are
comfortable with or excited about
6
■
SPRING 2001
inclusive and collaborative preschool
settings. The developers of the project
knew they had to plan the training to
overcome various barriers, which
include differing philosophies and
backgrounds among staff about
education in general and inclusion in
particular, and lack of administrative
support. Not surprisingly, the attitudes
of the professionals responsible for
working together to offer and maintain
inclusive settings directly affects the
potential for success of those programs.
Both teachers and administrators can
“say the right things” about inclusion,
but privately feel that “it will not work.”
The Connections Project
training takes a
unique approach to
overcoming these
barriers to inclusion.
Classroom teams of
teachers and parents from different
kinds of preschool settings (state,
special education, community-based,
Head Start, and private) attend the
training together. One major strand of
content focuses on teaming strategies
and learning to understand the beliefs
and practices of other team members.
Not only are administrators involved in
the training, but they also attend
seminars with other administrators.
Nine days of training are then followed
by six days of site visits, all designed to
help the teams successfully implement
the training material at their
preschools.
One of the most important
components of the Connections
training, however, is its emphasis on
building developmentally appropriate
practices that promote active learning
for all children. Early childhood
teachers and administrators learn
several aspects critical for the success of
preschool inclusion efforts:
• A common understanding and
knowledge of strategies of
developmentally inclusive practices
• The ability to implement quality
classroom environments that promote
active learning
• The ability to evaluate and plan daily
routines in a child-centered
framework
• Strategies that promote problemsolving skills, higher levels of
thinking, preliteracy, premath, and
science skills in young children
Three years of data gathered on the
effects of these training efforts show
that they are working in the ways
intended. The attitudes and practices
of both teachers and administrators are
changing, especially in the development of greater feelings of shared
responsibilities for children with
disabilities. The most concrete
proof of success is from third-party
observers who visit the classroom
before and after the training: they
rate the classrooms higher on a
rating scale of quality early
childhood environments. Evaluation
staff report an increase in the number
of both children with and without
disabilities who are engaged while in the
classroom, interacting in a
developmentally and contextually
appropriate manner with the social and
nonsocial environment. This last result
is most encouraging and most captures
the intent of the Connections training.
Attitudes, habits, and abilities begin
to form very early in life. Those first,
formal experiences of school can
benefit all children, leaving them with
the belief that learning is exciting and
fun, community means diversity, and
humans are all different in wonderful
and challenging ways. It is the intent of
programs like the Connections Project
to support these outcomes.
To find out more about the
Connections Project Training, go
online at http://www.sonoma.edu/
cihs/connect.html; email:
[email protected]; or
phone 707/664-3218.
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Summer Institutes for Inclusive School Teams
Professional Development That Works
B
By Ann T. Halvorsen ED.D., Professor, CSU Hayward, Director CLEAR Project
eginning in 1988, 75–100
people from schools
statewide gathered each
summer for intensive institutes entitled
School Site Team Collaboration for
Inclusive Education. Initially under the
umbrella of the California Department
of Education’s (CDE) Special
Education Innovation Institutes, these
team workshops were designed, led,
and sponsored by a series of federally
funded systems change projects, starting with PEERS (Providing Education
for Everyone in Regular Schools) and
most recently with the California
Confederation on Inclusive Education.
Presenters have included school
personnel, parents, and students from
urban, rural, and suburban districts
experienced with inclusive services.
These highly interactive, skillbuilding experiences utilized researchbased professional development
practices, adult learning principles,
and the work of effective inclusive
schools. Site-level teams of general and
special education teachers, principals,
parents, paraprofessionals, and related
services/support staff worked together
to assess their own needs and obtain
specific strategies to facilitate inclusive
services: the provision of specialized
support to students with IEPs
(Individualized Education Programs)
within general education.
Here, as in the institutes, it is critical
to define inclusive education, which
means that “. . . students with disabilities are supported in chronologically
age-appropriate general education
classes in their home schools, and
receive the specialized instruction
delineated by their IEPs, within the
context of the core curriculum and
general class activities. . . students are
full members of the general education
class and do not belong to any other
specialized environment based on
characteristics of their disability.”
(Halvorsen & Neary, 2001,1).
These institutes contained a range of
activities designed to assist teams with
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
essential planning, curricular, and
instructional processes through which
student priorities are addressed with
the level and range of supplementary
aids and services needed to support
their progress.
Two primary themes directed these
activities: effective differentiated
instruction for all students, and resource
structuring to support best practices.
These practices include teaming; multilevel, standards-based instructional
design and modifications; collaborative
and active learning with co-teaching
and peer supports; positive classroom
climate; and innovative service delivery
“ Good professional
development has
[changed] in favor of
job-embedded forms.”
or staffing approaches. These institutes
provided valuable first steps and
problem-solving strategies to core
groups from each school, empowering
teams from Lassen to San Diego with
skills to support each other back home.
As the next step in the process,
Leadership Institutes for experienced
inclusive schools were initiated in
1999, with support from the CDE
LRE (Least Restrictive Environment)
Resources Project. McGregor,
Halvorsen, Fisher, Pumpian,
Bhaerman, and Salisbury (1998) note
that good professional development has
moved away from “sit and get”
inservice in favor of job-embedded
forms, such as participation in
curricular planning or school reform
groups, or coaching relationships
among colleagues. Job-embedded
development requires an ongoing
relationship among the players
involved within their working context.
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
Collaboration and Leadership
Institutes brought teams of people
together to facilitate opportunities for
shared experiences. These opportunities
capitalized on the peer-to-peer
relationships in order to build and
sustain change and innovations back at
the school site. Components of the
Leadership Institutes included team
processes, planning, and problemsolving strategies; needs assessment;
resource restructuring; school portrait
development; the use of coaching,
facilitation skills, and other forms of
personnel development to support
change; and networking.
Teaming proved to be key to the
institutes’ success, with teams of
presenters including student peer teams
and partners from innovative schools,
along with the participant teams.
Effective teaming was also extended by
linking potential leadership schools
with other experienced inclusive schools
throughout the state to encourage their
exchange of information, products,
resources, and ideas to enhance the
practices of each other. The goal of the
CDE and these projects was to develop
and support a network of schools with
leadership teams that had the capacity
to mentor newly inclusive school
partners, and to build a bank of
“practitioners-in-place” who are interested in working with schools and
districts in their regions.
Time, the commodity we seem to
lack most in today’s schools, is the
remaining critical ingredient to the
success of any professional development effort. The value of time was even
more apparent to teams involved in
these institutes once they had
experienced the luxury of working
together. This realization led some
schools to explore new ways to embed
common collaborative periods within
the school week.
Creative strategies are needed for our
diverse schools to implement inclusive
education, and summer institutes are
Institutes continued, page 14
SPRING 2001
■
7
• Integrated with the community
(e.g., multi-agency services)
•
Focused on improving teaching and
standards, and improved teaching and
learning
within the context of the
learning for all students.
general
curriculum,
high
It is within this construct of curexpectations,
and
state
and local
riculum access and improving teaching
standards
and learning that LRE considerations
• Based on a renewed, collaborative
must be made. This shift was made
approach in partnership with
within the 1997 Amendments to the
parents
Individuals with Disabilities Education
•
Incorporating research-based
Act (IDEA ’97), which defines special
knowledge
and best practices
education not as a place, but rather as
•
Providing
appropriate
training and
those supports and services that help
other
support
for
teachers,
including
students access the general curriculum
time
to
plan
with
other
teachers
and
and address the unique needs caused by
agency
partners
a disability.
The participants in this forum
Educators within California and
articulated
LRE options as a seamless
other states must implement LRE
and
integrated
system of support for
within the context of the following key
the
child.
changes incorporated in IDEA ’97:
This reinforced previous work I
• Educational improvements align
facilitated
as a Senior Scholar of the
with IDEA so that “all” can
Council
for
Exceptional Children. In
mean “all” students.
1997,
representatives
from a number of
• State and local educational
national
associations
concluded
that
improvements focus on
the
following
features
characterize
higher expectations,
schools that are implementing LRE
meaningful access to the
mandates.
general curriculum, and
• A sense of community
improved teaching and
There is a vision that all staff and
learning.
children belong, everyone is
• State performance
Designed by the
accepted, and all are supported by
goals for children
National Association of State
peers and the adults in the school.
with disabilities
Directors of Special Education
•
Visionary leadership
are developed
(NASDSE), this graphic illustrates special education as
The administration is actively inand monitored;
not a place, but a dynamic, coordinated set of services that
volved and shares responsibility with
these goals address
involves many agencies, in addition to the schools.
the entire school staff in planning
key indicators of
and carrying out the strategies that
success and provide
make the school successful.
accountability for change.
each child’s needs and abilities.
•
High standards
• Children with disabilities are
In 1998, participants in “Continuum
All children meet high levels of
included within general state and
Revisited,” sponsored by the National
educational outcomes and high
district-wide assessment, with or
Association of State Directors of
standards of performance that are
without accommodations, or through
Special Education, proposed the
appropriate to their ability.
alternate assessment.
following vision for LRE:
•
Collaboration and cooperation
• The emphasis on coordinated services
• An array of community, school, and
Students and staff support one
planning expands the IEP team to
cross-age supports and services,
another with such strategies as peer
include other agency partners, thus
beginning with early intervention
tutoring, buddy systems, cooperative
expanding the continuum of LRE
and early assistance and including
learning, team teaching, co-teaching,
programs and options.
intensive supports for students with
student assistance teams, and other
• Parents are integral partners in their
complex, inter-agency needs
collaborative arrangements.
child’s education; they provide
• Non-linear supports—to represent
•
Changing roles and responsibilities
functional information as a part of
fluid, flexible, dynamic, responsive,
Teachers lecture less and assist more,
the evaluation process, are involved in
and changing support, depending
school psychologists work more
making all decisions for their child,
on the needs of the students
closely with teachers in the
and receive regular reporting of their
• Child- and family-centered—
classroom, and every person in the
child’s educational program.
recognizing the totality of the child
building is an active participant in
• Parents and teachers are given
• Staffed by trained teacher/providers
the learning process.
training and staff development based
and qualified leaders
LRE
continued from page 1
on effective research and practice so
that they have the knowledge and
training to effectively support student
learning with various LRE supports.
• Early interventions are strengthened
to help ensure that every child starts
school ready to learn, and supports
are available to students as soon as
they need them.
The above provisions help frame our
concept of LRE, allowing it to go
beyond physical access, program access,
and placement. LRE is the array of
services, accommodations, and
supports needed to help students access
and benefit from the general
curriculum, taking into consideration
LRE, continued, page 12
8
■
SPRING 2001
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Clearing the Air
Effective Reading Instruction and LRE Issues
“
S
By Kevin Feldman, PH.D., with staff
pecial Education
is not a place.”
Learning in the least
restrictive environment (LRE), effective
individualized instruction, and having
access to the core curriculum used in
general education classrooms: these are
great promises of special education. In
addition, they are rights mandated by
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, and they make good
sense. However, it is critical to
understand that they may be realized in
very different ways for different
students.
Spending the entire day in a general
education classroom is not necessarily
the top priority for the majority of
students in special education—kids
with learning disabilities. For them,
closing the literacy gap and improving
social behavior are likely to be more
important first steps toward the
broader goal of accessing the general
education curriculum.
Making the educational challenge
even more interesting is the fact that
learning to read is fundamentally a
developmental task. There are
predictable stages of ability and
knowledge through which a student
must progress—clear stages of
acquisition over which instruction
cannot jump, or the student will be
lost. In order to navigate this sequence,
these students need targeted, direct
instruction together with age- and
level-appropriate reading material in
which to practice their emerging
reading skills.
For example, if a fourteen-year-old
student is reading at the third-grade
level, placing him in a class that is
studying A Tale of Two Cities and
reading the book to him, or even
giving it to him on a tape player, is not
the most effective way to improve his
independent reading skills. This is not
to say a ninth-grade English class with
appropriate accommodations is not a
good idea; rather, we need to be clear
that it is not a substitute for a reading
class. Children learn what we teach.
The only way to significantly improve
the literacy skills of struggling readers is
to provide targeted, direct instruction
(e.g. decoding, fluency, comprehension
strategies), coupled with massive
amounts of engaging reading practice.
Educators must untangle issues
about accessing the core curriculum
In the design of effective
reading instruction. . .
for students with substantial
difficulty, the location—where a
student is taught—is not the
primary concern. The primary
concerns are to
(1) properly identify critical skills
that students will need to learn;
(2) provide instruction and
materials that will effectively
address students’ deficiencies;
and
(3) schedule adequate time for
instruction and practice.
With increased awareness of these
three concerns, schools are
developing effective schoolwide
options for struggling readers,
regardless of their labels.
— Adapted from The California
Reading Initiative: Critical Ideas
Focusing on Meaningful Reform
from issues about intervention and
remediation, and remember that our
goal is to increase student achievement
so that all students become literate and
competent members of our society.
Students with significant reading
difficulties need an intervention
curriculum that has been validated for
the explicit purpose of accelerating
literacy development. This is the
promise of special education: an
individualized instructional program
based on assessed needs, with the
children being taught at their particular
level, so that any existing gap between
their skills and learning and those of
their grade-level peers is lessened. This
includes accurate assessment to guide
instruction, monitor progress, and
otherwise address learning differences.
It is important to remember that
where services are provided is not
necessarily the most important thing.
The central issue is what services are
provided. In other words, to pull out or
to push in is not the essential question,
but rather, where can students be given
targeted instruction based on their
assessed needs? A pull-out program
may be the best approach for assuring
that this happens, particularly if it gives
students the differentiated instruction
necessary to close the gap between their
lagging reading skills and those of their
age-mates. Problems emerge when
educators equate the “LRE mandate”
and “full inclusion” with 100 percent
time spent in the regular education
classroom.
This is not to say that the issues in
question—core curriculum access and
least restrictive environment—are not
important. But the essence of an IEP
(Individualized Education Plan) is to
establish and pursue the top priorities.
Balancing the right to LRE and access
to the core curriculum, while
identifying and responding to the
child’s most critical needs, is the whole
point of this plan. Documenting
improvement and monitoring progress,
also major goals of an IEP, are the best
guides to ensuring that this happens.
The central question is whether or
not the data collected on the student’s
performance suggests significant
improvement in these areas. Are we
closing the gap? If not, we must change
the program, not blame the student!
In the preponderance of cases, it is
not an “either/or” issue. Kids need as
much access to the core curriculum as
possible. But, for most students with
learning disabilities, that access must be
within the context of focused reading
instruction. As educators, we must get
beyond “either/or” thinking and realize
that, for many students, the regular
education curriculum may not be more
Reading, continued page 10
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
SPRING 2001
■
9
Reading
continued from page 9
important than specifically targeted
instruction that helps each child gain
parity with his classmates. There
exists the danger of taking a noble
concept and subverting it. We
cannot overlook or ignore individual
literacy needs under the battle cry of
LRE or full inclusion. A pull-out
program, where the child is taught at
his particular level, may be the least
restrictive environment. And a
general education classroom
where a child cannot understand the discussion, or where
she is not given the specific
instruction she needs to
improve her reading skills, may
be the most restrictive. Ideally,
schools would create seamless
systems of support based on
every student’s assessed needs,
and abandon the categorical
medical model of traditional
special education.
As educators, we must
remember that learning is not about
“where.” Learning is about learning:
about gaining knowledge and
ability, with documented
improvement. It is our educational
and moral obligation to work
together to create schools that truly
work for all kinds of kids. It’s that
simple — and that hard.
Autism
continued from page 13
children. I went home and sat by the
phone. I expected the school to call
at any moment and say, “Please
come and pick up your son.” That
never happened. Kevin’s special
education supports were in place and
working.
Kevin stopped talking when he
was two, but by the end of the
kindergarten year he started
saying, “Hi” and “No.” He
participated in the Christmas
performance and his classmates
learned sign language as one way to
communicate with him. He
progressed with his classmates each
year through elementary school and
is now in middle school. There have
been challenges, to be sure, but our
IEP team embraced my mission:
successfully include Kevin so
10
■
SPRING 2001
everyone benefits.
Not everyone always shared our vision
and enthusiasm about including
students with disabilities. At one school
meeting with parents, educators, and
administrators, including the
superintendent and a representative
from the Federal government’s Office of
Special Education, a mother stood up
and proceeded to read a two-page
account of why Kevin shouldn’t be in
school with her son or the other
students because of how he could harm
their education. However, a number of
parents at that meeting staunchly
defended inclusion as a civil right. The
protesting mother and other nay-sayers
did not dissuade us.
During our first year, a parent group
was formed to share and disseminate
information on inclusion to other
families. We attended many conferences
sponsored by CalTASH (California
Association for Persons with Severe
Disabilities) and National TASH, where
we learned about strategies to promote
our agenda. Support for Families of
Children with Disabilities (SFCD) was
also instrumental in spreading the word
to families about inclusion. This
wonderful organization holds forums for
parents and educators.
Inclusion, by now, had become a
vibrant issue in our district. The
Inclusion Task Force had grown to
include more parents, educators, and
administrators, who together wrote a
manual answering questions about
inclusive education. Professional
Development Days were also planned to
address how to successfully include
students with disabilities in the general
education classrooms. We invited
university professors such as Ann
Halvorsen, Lori Goetz, Pam Hunt, and
others, to help us in our efforts to
create an effective, inclusive school
community. Early on Dr. Halvorsen,
through a federal grant, gave and
continues to give our district her much
needed technical expertise.
We have progressed from our first
year, when we had four students with
disabilities being included in general
education classrooms. After eight years,
we now have more than 400 students
included at 44 schools, from grades
kindergarten through twelve. Our
general and special education staff
continue to work together, including
more students each year.
This year, Kevin is in the seventh
grade in a middle school with over
1,200 students. He and his brother
Kyle go to school together and are in
different classes by choice. Kevin
attends “Friendship Club” once a week
and goes to the after-school learning
center to do homework. He joins his
peers in computer and art classes. At
school, students call out to him, “Hi
Kevin! Wassup Kevin? Hey Kevin!”
Kevin’s friends, his non-disabled
peers, attend his IEPs. It is a
celebration IEP. This year those friends
told us he is smart in math and his oral
book reports have improved. But they
also say he must listen to the teachers
more. His friends noticed that Kevin
was alone during lunch period, and are
now asking if he wants to go watch the
basketball game in the gym, or jump
rope. They talk on the phone with
him, which also helps improve his
conversational skills—an IEP goal. If
they notice students teasing him, they
ask them to stop. They go together to
the school dances and have volunteered
to give Kevin dancing lessons. Kevin’s
peers write in his “Friends” notebook
telling us how Kevin’s day at school
went, as well as theirs. I hope he will
always have a “circle of friends.”
Marcel Proust wrote, “The voyage
of discovery is not in seeking new
landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
This mother’s new eyes are seeing
her son with autism live and thrive
in our world.
For more information
Visit the websites for TASH: http://
www.TASH.org/ and CalTASH:
http://www.caltash.gen.ca.us/
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Including the Majority of Students
Educating Children with Mild to Moderate Disabilities
By Colleen Shea Stump, PH.D., San Francisco State University
D
etermining the least
restrictive
environment (LRE)
for students with
mild to moderate disabilities (i.e.,
students with learning disabilities,
emotional disturbance, and mild to
moderate cognitive impairment) has
been a focal point of educators and
parents alike since the passage of
Public Law 94-142. Today, the
emphasis for LRE is often on
inclusion: children receiving most, if
not all, instruction in the general
education classroom. As schools adopt
inclusive models of instruction
for students with mild to
moderate disabilities, it is
important to consider available
research on the effectiveness of
inclusive models of service
delivery.
academic gains, those students with
learning disabilities who began the
academic year as poor readers failed to
make gains in reading. The authors
argue that this subgroup of students
with learning disabilities did not
benefit from the literature-based
program provided in the general
education classroom and that
interventions “. . . were not developed
specifically for students who have
severe reading disabilities. As has been
demonstrated before, students with
severe reading problems seem to
require specific, intensive reading
Student perceptions
Achievement outcomes
Findings of studies
investigating the impact of
inclusive and other service
delivery options on student
achievement continue to differ,
and at times, contrast with one
another. In one of the most
comprehensive investigations of
inclusive practices involving students
with mild to moderate disabilities,
Zigmond et al., (1995) found that over
50 percent of these students did not
make desired or adequate gains in
reading when included in general
education classrooms, even when
extensive supports were provided. The
authors concluded that the students
received a very good general education,
but not a special education.
In another comprehensive study,
Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm,
and Elbaum (1998) investigated
outcomes of students with learning
disabilities (LD) included in general
education classrooms. These students
were all identified by teachers as “likely
to benefit from inclusion.” Although a
majority of the students did make
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
the reading gains of students with LD
who receive reading instruction in the
general education classroom were
similar to the gains made by lowachieving, general education students.
One recent study also questioned the
efficacy of resource room programs,
and revealed that within many of these
programs, little instructional time was
found to be devoted to teaching
phoneme-grapheme relationships and
decoding strategies or to teaching
comprehension and reading strategies
— areas identified as key to the
development of literacy. The
students in this study
experienced no change in their
standardized achievement scores
in the area of comprehension.
instruction individually or in small
groups if they are likely to make
significant gains (p. 159).” The authors
conclude “. . . that full-time placement
in the general education classroom
with in-class support from special
education teachers is not sufficient to
meet the needs of these students. They
require combined services that include
in-class support and daily, intensive,
one-on-one instruction from highly
trained personnel. This is an expensive
proposition but it appears to be the
only solution that will yield growth in
reading for students with severe
reading disabilities (p. 159).”
Benefits of inclusion
On the other hand, additional
studies find that inclusion does bring
about desired gains for students with
learning disabilities, and report that
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
Students themselves have been
surveyed concerning their
perceptions of inclusive models.
Vaughn and Klingner (1998)
reviewed eight studies that
investigated student’s
perceptions of resource room
instruction and instruction in
inclusive settings. These studies
revealed five overall findings:
(a) the majority of students with high
incidence disabilities (i.e., learning
disabilities) preferred to receive
instruction in resource rooms as
compared to push-in supports provided
in inclusive classrooms; (b) students
had positive attitudes towards the
resource room because they received
the help they needed in that setting; (c)
students reported that the inclusive
classrooms assisted them in forming
friendships; (d) students valued the
support that special education teachers
provided in the inclusive classrooms
and that in many situations, were not
aware that the additional teacher in the
classroom was a special education
teacher; and (e) students were not
aware of how it had been determined
they were eligible for special education
Majority continued, page 12
SPRING 2001
■
11
LRE
continued from page 8
• Array of services
An inclusive school offers an array of
services, all coordinated with the
educational staff and designed to
meet the needs of learners
experiencing various cognitive,
physical, and/or emotional
challenges.
• Partnership with parents
Parents are embraced as equal and
essential partners in the education of
their children.
• Flexible learning environments
Children are not expected to move
in lock steps, but, rather, they follow
their individual paths to learning.
• Strategies based on research
Schools use proven and effective
teaching strategies in the classroom.
• New forms of accountability
Standardized tests are relied on less,
and there is more use of new forms
of accountability (e.g., portfolios,
performance-based assessment) to
ensure that all students are
progressing towards their goals.
• Access
Schools make necessary
modifications to the building and
provide appropriate technology,
allowing all students to participate
in school life.
• Continuing professional development.
Staff design and obtain ongoing
professional development founded
on research-based practices.
It is within this context of change in
IDEA and the evolution of thinking by
educators and researchers that the
California Department of Education
has initiated a statewide LRE Initiative.
A design team has developed state,
district, and local self-assessment
protocols to help educators,
administrators, and parents identify
areas of needed change for improving
LRE options, teaching, learning, and
overall student results. These protocols
are aides and tools, conceived to be
used as part of a larger and continuous
effort to improve educational programs
for students with disabilities.
The California Department of
Education is encouraging educators
and parents to use these LRE protocols
as a part of the Statewide LRE
12
■
SPRING 2001
Initiative. The insert to this issue of
The Special EDge contains a summary
of this Statewide LRE Initiative.
LRE efforts across the state must not
be carried out in isolation, but in
conjunction with other statewide
efforts, such as the California Reading
Initiative and the Preferred Practices
Initiative. The overall goal of all of
these initiatives is to improve results
and outcomes for our children and
youth with disabilities.
References
The Continuum of Educational Options.
. . Past. . . Present. . . Future. Schrag,
Judy A. (1998) Arlington, VA:
National Association of State
Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE).
A Forum on the Continuum Revisited.
Schrag, Judy A. (1999) Arlington,
VA: National Association of State
Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE).
To visit the NASDSE website, go to
http://www.nasdse.org
Majority
tional model will meet the needs of all
students with learning disabilities; thus
there is an advantage to providing a
range of educational models” (p. 86).
In 1997, following a review of eleven
studies of inclusion programs and
academic outcomes, Manset and
Semmel concluded “The evidence
presented does suggest that inclusive
programs for some students with mild
disabilities can be an effective means of
providing services, but the evidence
clearly indicates that a model of
wholesale inclusive service delivery
models does not exist at present.”
As stated in the law, students with
disabilities are to be educated in the
least restrictive environment. For
students with mild to moderate
disabilities, it appears the least
restrictive environment is still found
along a continuum of service delivery
models, from general education
settings that model full inclusion to
settings that are uniquely designed for
students with disabilities.
References
continued from page 11
and how decisions were made
concerning where they received
instruction, whether in the special
education resource room or inclusive
classroom.
What to do
Determining appropriate service
delivery models for the largest group
of students with disabilities—those
with mild to moderate disabilities—is
complex because of the heterogeneity
and the shear number of students
included within this group. Since the
passage of PL 94-142, educators, in
partnership with parents, have
attempted to develop models that
provide for the diverse educational
needs of these students. Currently, the
push has been to adopt inclusive
models and decrease and/or eliminate
programs that are viewed as more
restrictive (e.g., special day classes and
resource room programs). However, as
the data suggest, a simple solution of
adopting one approach for everyone
does not appear warranted. In their
review (discussed above), Vaughn and
Klingner (1998) concluded that “The
important lesson is that no one educa-
“Are Inclusive Programs for Students
with Mild Disabilities Effective? A
Comparative Review of Model
Programs.” The Journal of Special
Education, 31, 155–180. Manset, G.,
& Semmel, M.L. (1997).
“The Effects of Reintegration into
General Education Reading
Instruction for Students with Mild
Disabilities.” Exceptional Children,
64(1), 59–79. Shinn, M.R., PowellSmith, K.A. Good, R.H., III., &
Baker, S. (1997).
“Outcomes for Students with and
Without Learning Disabilities in
Inclusive Classrooms.” Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice,
13(3), 153–161. Klingner, J.K.,
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.R.,
Schumm, J.S., & Elbaum, B. (1998).
“Special Education in Restructured
Schools: Findings from Three
Multi-Year Studies.” Phi Delta
Kappan, 76, 531–535. Zigmond, N.,
Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.,
Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L.,
& Couthino. (1995).
“Students’ Perceptions of Inclusion and
Resource Room Settings.” The Journal
of Special Education, 32(2), 79–88.
Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J.K. (1998).
SPECIAL EDUCATION/G ENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL ED GE
Autism in the Classroom: One Mother’s Story
“
I
By Alycia Chu
f we are to achieve a richer
culture . . . We weave one in
which each diverse human
gift will find a fitting place.”
— Margaret Mead
When he was two and one-half years
old, our son Kevin was diagnosed with
autism. He wouldn’t make eye contact
and displayed bizarre and repetitive
behaviors, the most disturbing of
which was placing his hands over his
ears and running and hiding when our
“living noises” became too loud. How
could Kevin ever cope with the outside
world?
We placed Kevin in a nonpublic
school that offered a small classroom
with five other young boys with
disabilities. We believed it would be a
haven for Kevin. There were three
special education teachers, and each
student had his own cubbyhole. In
addition, there was a “meltdown” room
right outside the classroom door. We
thought this ratio of one teacher to two
students would help create the
nurturing atmosphere we thought
Kevin needed.
Early in the school year, the head
teacher, Tina Giovanni, asked us why
we didn’t put Kevin in the same school
as his fraternal twin brother, Kyle. Tina
knew Kevin had autism but believed
that, with appropriate supports, he
could learn and develop in a general
education classroom. She started asking
questions like “Don’t you think Kevin
could learn with non-disabled peers in
a general ed classroom?” and, most
importantly, “Wouldn’t you like him to
have friends?” Our justifications—
offering him a world where it was safe
to be autistic and to be sheltered from
the harsh sights and sounds of our
world—began to make less sense.
Tina’s gentle arguments in favor of
educating all young students together
started to take hold. Her positive
encouragement became our first step
towards inclusion.
The following spring, we started to
make plans to move Kevin out of the
nonpublic school and have him
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
“included” in our neighborhood public
school for the fall. Although there was
one catch: our district had no program
for including students with disabilities.
Our first inclusion support teacher
was Jeffrey Libby, a special education
teacher who was experienced in
inclusive educational practices. He
helped to start bridging the gap
between general and special education.
Jeffrey also started an Inclusion Task
Force to support both general and
special education teachers in their
attempts to collaborate and make
inclusion efforts like ours successful. In
the beginning there were only five of us
on this team: two teachers, two
parents, and an administrator. We all
knew the task before us was daunting:
We were asking general and special
education to trust each other.
Many staff members on both sides
were asking “Why should we work
together? Why should we change the
present system?” Of course the structure of the system supported this attitude, as everyone, it seemed, from the
administrators on down to the students, operated in one of two carefully
separated worlds. General and special
education were divided and people
were comfortable with that model.
What our task force needed was
support from the top, someone at the
administrative level to help open doors,
and, we hoped, open minds. We did
end up getting that support. As a
result, more people who shared the
same vision started coming to our
meetings to help plan. Overall, we
received amazing support from the
people in the San Francisco Unified
School District—parents, teachers,
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
administrators, and therapists. There
were so many of them who welcomed
our kids and worked with us to make
inclusion a successful venture.
IEP (Individualized Education Plan)
teams, new to implementing inclusion,
faced a very daunting task. How do
you convince and gain the trust of the
general education school community,
special educators, and administrators?
Would they be able to see that our
children with disabilities could learn
alongside their non-disabled peers?
Would they realize that all children
benefit from being educated together?
In order to encourage these beliefs, we
needed to establish a track record. The
Inclusion Task Force and IEP teams
had to work doubly hard to make
inclusion a success.
Our first year of inclusion was 1993.
Kevin was one of four students in the
district who were included that year,
and the only one in an elementary
school of over 500. Before school
started, we met with general and
special educators and administrators to
discuss Kevin’s special education
supports. I will be forever grateful to
our school principal, Judith Rosen,
who was always supportive of
including Kevin in her school.
With her and Jeffrey Libby’s help, we
were able to figure out what Kevin
needed to be successfully included. The
answer turned out to be relatively easy:
Kevin needed extra classroom
assistance and a special education
teacher, or inclusion support teacher,
overseeing his program. Both general
education and special education
needed to collaborate and coordinate
supports and services to make this
effort successful.
On the first day of school, I
remember standing in the kindergarten
yard with 31 other new kindergarten
parents. The morning bell rang, and we
followed our children into the
classroom and stood behind them at
their desks as they sat down. The
kindergarten teacher welcomed us all
and then dismissed parents, asking us
to return that afternoon to pick up our
Autism continued, page 10
SPRING 2001
■
13
Institutes
continued from page 7
one highly effective tool in this process.
As one teacher commented on an
institute evaluation, “This has been a
life-changing event. We have learned
more about how to work together than
in a year of meetings. Now we can
bring these inclusive strategies back to
our school and share what we have
learned for all students.”
Resources
Building Inclusive Schools: Tools and Strategies
for Success. Halvorsen, A.T. & Neary, T.
(2001). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
The California Confederation on Inclusive
Education: http://interwork.sdsu.
edu/projects/ccie/info2.html
The National Institute for Urban School
Improvement:
http://www.edc.org/urban/
Professional Development for All Personnel in
Inclusive Schools. McGregor, G.,
Halvorsen, A.T., Fisher, D., Pumpian, I.,
Bhaerman, B., & Salisbury, C. (1998).
Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Boards of Education, Issue Brief,
November, 3 (3),1–12. For the complete
text, go to http://www.asri.edu/
CFSP/brochure/prodevib.htm
Community
continued from page 5
his or her learning abilities, [has] more
patience with his or her own limitations.”
Members of inclusive classrooms are
also seen to develop a social conscience
and a willingness to become
spokespersons for their friends who “can’t
speak out.” As one teacher noted, perhaps
inclusive education “serves much more
the other children rather than the disabled
child” as it engenders respect for everyone,
regardless of abilities or physical
conditions.
At Thousand Oaks Elementary School,
inclusion is a way of life. Educators and
parents are committed to creating a
school in which all students are valued
members. These adults are to be credited
with showing many like-minded
individuals throughout the state how
effective inclusion is accomplished.
This article was adapted from original
research by Pam Hunt, Anne
Hirese-Hatae, Kathy Doering,
Patricia Karasoff, and Lori Goetz.
14
■
SPRING 2001
Winners
continued from page 16
• A school must model what the staff
wants its community to be.
• All students benefit when they
engage with diverse populations.
• Belonging to a community of
learners promotes the potential of
all students.
• All students benefit from the shared
responsibility between special and
general education.
• There is no one right decision for
all students.
• Those impacted by a decision need
to be involved in the decisionmaking process.
An important aspect of Brywood’s
model is their development of, and
emphasis on, child-centered
programs. These programs meet the
individualized needs of all children:
special education, at risk, and gifted.
The school’s many extended
opportunities for learning include
after-school classes in math and
language arts, flexible grouping by
ability, small groups for re-teaching,
consultation, the merger of general
education and special education
teacher roles, and student study
team collaboration with support
from their Special Program for
Inclusive Collaborative Education
(SPICE) team.
Every classroom teacher has an
identified SPICE team member for
on-the-spot collaborative trouble
shooting and for developing longerrange intervention strategies. Because
specialists are in the classrooms, their
familiarity with students not only
expedites problem solving, but also
frequently prevents problems from
happening in the first place. Decisions
about each student are driven by the
student’s needs, not by the
existence—or lack of—an IEP.
Staff trainings, an essential part of
Brywood’s success, are based on the
needs of students and teachers. They
are designed with the collaborative
model in mind and attended by
grade-level and site-level teams. After
these sessions, the administration
expects the staff to implement the
practices they have learned, and this is
monitored through classroom
observation and annual teacher goalsetting.
Parent involvement is also
fundamental to the success of
Brywood’s model. Parents are at all of
their children’s Student Study Team
meetings. They volunteer daily at the
school, with volunteer hours totaling
over 30,000 a year. The school uses
parent surveys, PTA open-forum
meetings, School Site Council meetings
and formal program reviews, and
formal and informal town meetings to
promote active, effective
communication between parents and
the school. It also sponsors parent
math, science, and literacy nights to
teach parents how to help their
children at home.
The collaborative staff at Brywood
consistently report that they do not
wish to return to the traditional
classroom model. Incentives for
sustaining the collaborative model are
powerful for teachers and students
alike, with teachers reporting a number
of benefits: a reduction in their feelings
of isolation; a dramatic enhancement of
their personal and professional efficacy
through continuous professional
growth; and the satisfaction of shared
successes as well as burdens.
Students in special education also
have benefited in many ways. The
appropriate instructional interventions
they are given dramatically reduce the
rate of failure. Being part of their home
community allows them to see
themselves as being like their peers.
They are given the opportunity to take
personal responsibility for their own
learning, successes, and failures. They
are given the occasion to understand
the connections between their behavior
and outcomes; and because others
consider them capable, they can see
themselves that way, too.
These two schools, Rincon Middle
School and Brywood Elementary, truly
exemplify the best aspects of collaborative instruction. Working together is
the norm on these two campuses, with
collaboration taking place at all grade
levels, in all classrooms. Because
teachers use instructional strategies that
benefit all students, it is difficult to
even identify the special education
students in any classroom. At these
schools, all means all.
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE
L
IBRARY
RESOURCES
View all resources from the RiSE
(Resources in Special Education)
Library online at http://www.php.
com; or phone in orders to 408/7275775, ext. 110.
Co-Teaching Lesson Plan Book 2000.
By Lisa Dieker. Knowledge by Design;
Whitefish Bay, WI; 2000; 46 pp. Call
#22465. This book is designed to
support the collaborative planning and
communication required to make coteaching successful and help students
with disabilities succeed in general
education classrooms.
Collaborating with Teachers and
Parents: Methods, Materials, and
Workshops.
By Catharine S. Bush. Communication
Skill Builders; Tucson, AR; 1991;
182 pp. Call #7910. Materials for
curriculum and communication
projects in the classroom and for
workshops with parents are included.
Creativity and Collaborative Learning:
A Practical Guide to Empowering
Students and Teachers.
By J.S. Thousand, R.A. Villa., and A.I.
Nevin. Paul H. Brookes Publishing;
Baltimore, MD; 1994; 420 pages.
Call #7416. Provides strategies of
cooperative learning and guidelines for
adapting curricula and instructional
methods, developing peer-mediated
teaching systems, facilitating peer
connections and friendships, and
enhancing creative thinking.
Teacher Education in Transition:
Collaborative Programs to Prepare
General and Special Educators.
By Linda Blanton, Cynthia Griffin,
Judith Winn, and Marleen Pugach,
Editors. Love Publishing Company;
Denver, CO; 1997; 276 pages.
Call #22325. The authors of this
book support collaboration in teacher
education programs as a shared agenda
between special education and general
education. They show the need to
jettison the old separate, parallel
system of teacher training in favor
of new roles and responsibilities
for faculty.
THE SPECIAL EDGE
■
C
ALENDAR
2001
JULY 19–21, 2001
Piecing the Puzzle Together:
Restructuring for Caring and
Effective Education
This summer leadership institute is
designed for anyone interested in
improving educational practices in
support of children with learning and
language differences in the general
education classroom: teachers, school
administrators, parents, paraprofessionals, and school teams. It offers an
opportunity to learn, plan, connect,
and share. Featured presenters include
internationally renowned speaker and
author Norman Kunc, award-winning
Professor Mary Falvey, Director of the
Special Education Division of the
California Department of Education
Alice Parker, and authors Richard
Villa and Jacqueline Thousand,
among other leaders in the field of
inclusive and least restrictive educational efforts.
For more information, call 760/7614917; fax 760/ 761-4917. Reduced
rates are available for parents and
paraprofessionals.
LATE AUTUMN, 2001
Regional Field Trainings
From November through March, the
California Department of Education,
Special Education Division, will again
offer Regional Field Meetings that
address critical topics in education.
Eight identical meetings are planned
for San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles,
Burbank, Fresno, the Bay Area,
Sacramento, and Redding. Topics will
include Least Restrictive Environment,
Secondary Transition, Interagency
Agreements, Infant/Toddler programs,
Preschool, Assessment and Accountability, Speech and Language, Charter
Schools, and more. Registered participants will receive the following new
CDE publications: I Can Learn;
Transition to Adult Living: A Guide for
Secondary Education; Program Guidelines for Language, Speech, and Hearing
Specialists; and The School Nurses’ Green
Book. Interested parents, educators,
and school teams should contact their
regional Focused Monitoring and
Technical Assistance (FMTA) CDE
administrator after June 30, 2001, for
dates and exact locations. Names and
phone numbers for FMTA administrators are on page three of the insert to
this issue; and also at http://www.cde.
ca.gov/spbranch/sed/fmtacnt.htm
Mail this in… for your free subscription to The Special EDge
Request
❒ New
❒ Change
Position
❒ Administrator
❒ Family Member
❒ Delete
❒ Educator
❒ Other
Name
Mailing
Address
School/Organization
Address
City/State/Zip
Other
Interests
Mail to
❒ Online courses
❒ Workshops and trainings
❒ Parent leadership ❒ Educational consulting
Sonoma State University
CalSTAT/CIHS
1801 East Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707/ 206-0533, ext. 103
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
SPRING 2001
■
15
Collaborative Challenge Award Winners
T
It’s no surprise they’re . . . collaborative!
wo California schools—Rincon
Middle School in Escondido and
Brywood Elementary School in
Irvine—exemplify the movement
many schools are making toward a collaborative model
of instruction. The approach to education at both
schools dissolves the distinctions between general and
special education and supports the staff in meeting the
educational needs of all students.
Together with the school’s principal, the members of
the special education staff at Rincon Middle School
designed a program that integrates all students with
special needs into general education classrooms, whenever it is appropriate. Rincon developed a powerful
commitment to “blurring the boundaries” between
children of differing abilities. This is accomplished
through a carefully thought-out series of interventions.
Before the school year begins, special educators meet
with their interdisciplinary teams to review each incoming student’s strengths and requirements. General
education teachers receive a written summary of the
educational history of each student with an IEP (Individualized Education Program). The special education
teacher then issues a letter to parents explaining
Rincon’s program of inclusion and collaboration.
Throughout the year, the progress of all students with
special needs, whether new or returning, is reviewed
regularly. Then all students are given assessment tests
at the beginning and again at the end of the year to
assure proper grade and program placements.
Students at Rincon are taught by interdisciplinary
teams of teachers. Each team of 180 students shares
the same set of teachers, along with the same
counselor, the same assistant principal, and the same
special education teacher and instructional assistants.
This group of professionals attends regularly scheduled
weekly meetings, during which everyone shares ideas
and strategies for best serving their students. Because
special education teachers are in the general education
classes daily, general and special education teachers are
able to address their ongoing challenges together. It is
easy to forget that students are not the only ones
isolated from the general school population. Special
education teachers are often marginalized also.
Rincon’s collaborative model helps the whole school
community, staff as well as students, work together for
the good of all.
Rincon Middle School continues to have pull-out
classes for those students who need specialized
assistance. The parents of the students and their
general and special education teachers work together to
make this decision. The school also offers study skills
16
■
SPRING 2001
classes to help students learn how to
get organized or to allow for additional
time to complete assignments or tests.
Rincon encourages parents to
become as informed as possible about
their children’s needs and progress.
Teachers send home formal progress
reports every six weeks, and weekly or
daily, if needed. Students themselves
are not left out of the communication
loop. They are regularly kept apprised of their progress and receive
computer printouts of their grades every three weeks. General and
special education teachers work together to evaluate students. Those
who need extensive accommodations may receive modified grades.
The school district also supports the school’s collaborative efforts
by approving more hours for Rincon’s support staff in order for
teachers to be released for training and collaboration. In addition,
students themselves contribute in unique ways. During their eighthgrade physical education elective, approximately thirty students have
volunteered to become “buddies” for students who have more severe
disabilities. Everyone benefits from this arrangement: they learn
acceptance, develop social skills, and begin to take a genuine interest
in each other’s success. According to Debbie Whitty, special
education teacher at Rincon, “The inclusive/collaborative model has
produced benefits beyond providing the best possible support for
special education students. Students with and without disabilities
have learned about tolerance and have discovered that, despite their
differences, every student is a learner, and all students have
something valuable to offer.”
Brywood Elementary School shares a similar commitment to the
collaborative model, teaching all classes collaboratively and
integrating all students into general education classrooms. The staff
there attribute their success to a particular set of shared beliefs:
Winners continued on page 14
Sonoma State University
CalSTAT
California Institute on Human
Services
1801 East Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3609
SPECIAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION COLLABORATION
Non-Profit
U.S. Postage
PAID
Sonoma State
University
■
THE SPECIAL EDGE